From the materials Planning prepared for the conference, all emphasis theirs:

“The State Law does not limit the types of concessions or incentives, and municipalities must grant any requested incentive or concession unless the City has substantial evidence that the concession or incentive does not have a positive financial impact on the projects. The amount of the density bonus and the number of incentives and concessions is based on a sliding scale, depending on the amount and level of affordability of the housing.”

“State Law defines concessions or incentives as proposals that “result in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions.” A city may deny a requested concession or incentive if makes written findings, based on substantial evidence, that the concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs or rents. In addition, similar to waivers, the only discretion that the Planning Commission has to disapprove an incentive or concession is if it would have a “specific, adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment”, or it would have an “adverse impact on any property listed in the California Register of Historical Resource’s.””

And while the City of San Francisco has been working on plans for a contentious bonus height program of its own, rumblings of local developer discontent, with respect to not being able to effectively take advantage of the State law which already exists, have been growing louder.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

God speed San Francisco. I cant wait to see the headlines … “California coastal city which barely produces housing sues state to prevent the building of additional housing.”
We are going to lose this one. I cant wait.
What is the opposition on this?

Rather it is a developer suing the city probably. And it must be a developer not planning on doing much building in SF since suing the city isn’t really a winning strategy overall, this is the main reason the state density bonus has never been used in the City.

I would think they’re unrelated. The city can rezone the urban areas near Market st. The challenge is up-zoning ‘traditional’ areas like the Richmond, Bernal Heights, the Mission, Marina, North Beach…where heights have been for the most part restricted to 40 ft for decades.

“potential litigation with the City as defendant” – This would seem to indicate that the city is preparing to be sued for its failure to act within the state law allowing for density bonuses. Let us all hope that the city loses any potential action of this kind and is forced to allow for more development.

“SF is one of the least NIMBYish places in the Bay Area” — maybe, but only because of the low bar. And San Francisco shouldn’t be compared to suburbs, it should be compared to other large cities. It’s almost definitely the most development-hostile large city in North America.

The affluent areas of San Jose have plenty of NIMBYs. But in the less affluent areas there aren’t as many objections to development. You could say the same of the whole Bay Area: development glides through in commercial, industrial and less affluent areas but receives opposition if wealthy homeowners live nearby.

Does anyone know what kind of height bonus the state law would allow in strictly 2/3 story residential areas? Such as Mt. Davidson and Midtown Terrace? I would think they would not be impacted as these are SFH areas and there are no multiple units.

The State law doesn’t pick and chose…it’s State Law….the local laws could then find other prohibitive circumstances, like say, block someone from taking down an Edwardian, or what you’re talking about.

The City bonus plan discriminated, and specifically targeted properties based on vulnerability and profitability, so it was far from compliance.

A lot of people living in the Outside Lands are genuinely worried that this state law will cause entire blocks of single-family homes to be razed and replaced with the equivalent of Section 8 public housing.

Of course it’s a pretty silly concern, but the fear is creating a lot of political pressure, which I can only assume is the behind this search for litigation.

These people are being roused up by ‘affordable housing advocates’ and being fed mis-information. It is a pathetic power grab by a desperate few trying to maintain led role in negotiating every development deal in the city under the name of affordability but actually just for self aggrandizing.

Another place SF has been out of compliance with State law for years is essentially forbidding inlaw units (until the recent actions by Scott Weiner in District 8 and Julie Christensen in District 3). Prior to a few months ago, they were allowed only in one zoning category in small parts of SOMA. Every other Bay Area community, including Piedmont, for gods sake, allows inlaw units.

Just a couple weeks ago, the BOS voted to instruct SF’s State Legislative contingent (our 2 Assembly members and our State senator) to try to get language into AB2501 (which is intended to strengthen the existing State Bonus Density Law) to exclude SF from the State Bonus Density Law altogether! — a very slimy move.

Accordingly, we can’t trust our own politicos to do whats right, so please email the sponsoring legislators, Assembly members Bloom, Daly and Low and ask them to “hold the line” and not allow SF legislators to undermine the law and try to get special treatment for SF excluding it from the Bonus Density Law’s mandates.

yes, SF the city of exclusionary anti-growth housing considers itself an exception to state laws mandating growth because we’ve done so much for housing. Delusions are inexhaustible I vow to end them. For example down-zoning the entire city in the 1970s/1980s; having the most nimby discretionary approval process in all of CA; comparing urban growth patterns to suburban neighbors, and now considering an impact fee that reduces development feasibility except for luxury housing. delusional san Francisco. We have one of the few inclusionary fees in the state that does not include a density bonus – not because we are progressive and pro-housing, because we are provincial and opposed to change.